Republicans to 911 first responders: Drop dead

quote:

Ok fair enough , that's history, but NOW, to borrow 3/4 trillion dollars MORE to give away to the wealthiest 2% of the population (many of whom have said they didn't need or want it) is hocking our country's future.

Again, why plan on spending money that you don't have? Why not make cuts in the budget to offset the loss of tax revenues? It's so simple.

Cutting the budget sounds like a good idea, but no Repub has produced any concrete scheme to cut any program.

Is your budget at home in trouble because you didn't get that raise or bonus? Of course not, it's in trouble because you borrowed and spent too much.

quote:

Originally posted by JuanHunt:
Cutting the budget sounds like a good idea, but no Repub has produced any concrete scheme to cut any program.

Cutting the budget is a great idea. I truly hope Republicans will make across-the-board cuts.

quote:

Originally posted by rocky:
I am not going to let this serious post be hijacked! The republithugs are the architect of yadda - yadda - yadda... profit... yadda - yadda - yadda... Halliburton... yadda - yadda - yadda...

Once again "rocky", you are HIGH-larious!

quote:

Cutting the budget sounds like a good idea, but no Repub has produced any concrete scheme to cut any program.

Have any democrats? The problem with democrats is they never saw a give away program they didn't like, and with them there is no such thing as an emergency or temporary fix. The give away programs become set in concrete.

medicare part D is the largest expansion of an entitlement program ever, and completely unfunded, totally a general revenue burden.

Ge Team Repub!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Fighting Illini:

quote:

Ok fair enough , that's history, but NOW, to borrow 3/4 trillion dollars MORE to give away to the wealthiest 2% of the population (many of whom have said they didn't need or want it) is hocking our country's future.

Again, why plan on spending money that you don't have? Why not make cuts in the budget to offset the loss of tax revenues? It's so simple.

I wish to take a minute here to digress please:

Back in the '70 1st Nat Bank of Memphis offered what we now know as "overdraft checking" for the first time for any bank in the Memphis area. They ran an add on TV showing a woman grocery shopping, and getting to the checker , and after her groceries were checked, she showed the checker her checkbook (obviously she didn't have enough money to cover ) and the checker said kinda loud so half the store could hear "What you wanna put back Honey"

Well, that brings us back to the subject of which you mention.
I keep asking but except for a few small budget items, nobody ever came up with anything that would make much difference.
Here is a pretty good pie chart of our budget, although I admit it is put out by a group with an agenda:
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

So, now given what you know about where the money in the budget goes, I'll ask the same question that the checkout woman in that 1St Nat Bank add ask : What do you wanna put back, honey ?

How to cut $343 billions from the federal budget.

http://www.heritage.org/resear...m-the-federal-budget

And 2,000 pages of runaway spending.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/...y-spending-and-pork/

quote:

So, now given what you know about where the money in the budget goes, I'll ask the same question that the checkout woman in that 1St Nat Bank add ask : What do you wanna put back, honey ?

Things that are not necessary. Pork spending, special projects, planes the military doesn't want, research into World of Warcraft (yes, actually!),double dipping from fed employees, Cadillac insurance plans NOT being taxed because of unions, unions in general, 25 commissions when one will do, and have all congress members work only in December. It's the only time the SOB's get anything done.

None of those cuts will happen, nor will any Repub even propose them as potential cuts, as they are someones little pork project. Why is the fedgov building a $50million dollar shrine to Richard Shelby at the Tuscaloosa campus???..because Shelby wants them too.

While I agree most all Americans would concur with all those cuts you mentioned, and SHOULD be cut, with the excepton of the unwanted aircraft, those cuts would mean very little to the overall national budget.
You and I have discussed this before, and the fact is that unless we tackle the defense budget in a serious way, most everything else is small potatoes (except of course for SS and Medicare).
SS and Medicare are special in that they are separate budget items and are pre-paid for by payroll taxes. The much hated by some new insurance reform affectionally known as "Obama Care" is slated to address the cost of Medicare (and Medicade) when it kicks in and is reported to be some major savings to the fed budget afterwards.
Still, we spend more in defense than the rest of the world combined to fight a war with the USSR.
Since the USSR is no longer, the Defense budget should be scaled back by half. Look at the pie chart I posted, THAT could make a big difference. A side note here concerning the cost of war and the cost of supplying our troops with energy. I know most of you probably do not read Thomas Freedman, but you should check out this latest article by him. This could be the start of a good thing : http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12...rtner=rssnyt&emc=rss

I guess that is the main difference in a conservative view and a liberal view. I feel better knowing we have the best military in the world. I am sure there are things that could be cut or scaled back but I don't want our military to drop from number one to number 10.

As for those planes,
remember this:

quote:

Boeing Jets Get Funding – Even If Pentagon Doesn’t Want Them
By August Cole

August Cole reports on the Pentagon.

Senate defense appropriators agreed with most of the White House’s plans to curtail wasteful or unnecessary weapons programs – except for $2.5 billion targeted for a transport jet the Pentagon says it doesn’t want.

California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, whose state includes Boeing’s C-17 plant and its thousands of workers, publicly thanked Sen. Daniel Inouye, the Hawaii Democrat who chairs the subcommittee and the full Senate Appropriations Committee. The funding “will keep this line alive,” Feinstein said.

The Air Force says it has enough C-17s, which currently play a frontline role in places like Afghanistan and can land on some of the world’s worst runways carrying everything from field hospitals to helicopters.

The House has already signed off on a defense appropriations bill that includes three more C-17s, making it all but assured some of the big jets will get the funding Boeing has lobbied hard for this summer.

It's not just un-necessary airplanes, but subs and ships as well.
The truth is that the defense budget is one huge jobs bill, and has been since WW11, but it gets worse every year.
My opinion is that we can no longer afford to play the world's cop, and we could cut the defense budget by half, and still spend more than the top 3 countries behind us.
I don't think we can afford it, but watch, it has too many jobs in all the senators districts to cut anything, needed or not needed.
Again , the point of all this discussion is that most people think we can cut the social safety network and achieve a sound budget, but that is wrong. Small potatoes .

quote:

Originally posted by Jennifer:

quote:

Cutting the budget sounds like a good idea, but no Repub has produced any concrete scheme to cut any program.

Have any democrats? The problem with democrats is they never saw a give away program they didn't like, and with them there is no such thing as an emergency or temporary fix. The give away programs become set in concrete.

You might want to rethink that, it is the Republicans give away programs that they are attempting to make permanent as we type.

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:

quote:

Originally posted by Jennifer:

quote:

Cutting the budget sounds like a good idea, but no Repub has produced any concrete scheme to cut any program.

Have any democrats? The problem with democrats is they never saw a give away program they didn't like, and with them there is no such thing as an emergency or temporary fix. The give away programs become set in concrete.

You might want to rethink that, it is the Republicans give away programs that they are attempting to make permanent as we type.

Rethink fact? No. This is an endless circle with dems. Juan ask for proof of just two areas of waste, we gave him a site because the list was to long to post. End of subject with him then, he went around that fact. This thread is just more juan smoke and mirrors.

Fifty-seven Democrats voted for the bill and 41 Republicans opposed it. Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, switched his vote to 'no' at the last moment, a parliamentary move that allows him to bring the measure up again for a vote.

Backers of the legislation see this lame-duck session of Congress as possibly its last chance. The bill has passed the House.

Republican senators have promised not to consider any other bills until the Senate acts on funding the government and extending tax cuts.



Facing long odds, supporters will try to attach the 9/11 bill to the legislation that emerges from the tax deal. They'll also press for another vote once the tax issue is settled.

Critics questioned whether the bill is affordable and does enough to ensure that only people with illnesses related to trade center dust get help.
--------------------------------------------------------------
WAYNE — Gov. Chris Christie defended fellow Republicans amid criticism that the GOP is holding up legislation to provide health benefits to 9/11 rescue workers, many of whom live in New Jersey.

"I don’t think my party is opposed to this bill," Christie said at an event in Wayne today. "This bill should be done, but it should be done in a way that is fiscally responsible."

--------------------------------------------------------------

NO ONE is saying drop dead to anyone, all we're saying is GET RID OF THE WASTE and we can fund important programs. But like sulking spoiled rotten brats dems whine because they LOVE the entitlement and freaking give away programs. Then when any question of cost comes up they start the lying about Republicans don't care about people cause they won't give them money. Sheesh

Again , it's the Republicans who are the give away party-

Give away millions of dollars in un-bid contracts to Dick Cheney's company .
Give away millions of dollars to build one extra jet engine for each single engine jet plane to benefit John Boenener.
Give away 900 Billion to multi-millionairs , most to the Wall Street banker tycoons who damm near sunk the country, in tax breaks
Give away to oil companies royalties to oil under our land. (or rather not make them pay the royalties they are supposed to ) . Exxon Mobile had the highest profits ever for any company last year and paid not one red cent for federal taxes, and got back over a million dollars. (and you whine about someone getting food stamps)
Give away (for real cheap) the lumber in our national Forrest to GHW Bush's buddies in the lumber business.
Give huge tax breaks to companies who outsource building products to overseas labor markets.
Give free health care to the citizens of Iraq
Build new schools for the children of Iraq.
Build new roads for the people of Iraq.

It is the Republican party that gives away big time, but they give away to the rich and powerful, and they give it away in extremely large quantities, while they cry about helping our 911 first responders.
Don't give me that "tax and spend Democratics" crap, its the Republican "Borrow and spend" that has gotten us into the financial mess we are in.

As long as there is life there will be death. As long as there’s democrats there will be taxes…..and more taxes……and new taxes…..and raised taxes…..and it never ends because they can’t stop spending our money.

And as long as there are liberals, there will be blaming the Republicans for all the over spending the democrats have done. It’s just the way it is.

BTW, wasn’t obamacare suppose to end the need for the first responder bill?

All first responders were just doing the job they signed up for.But since its a 9-11 thing lets give free insurance and a million bucks to them! I got up-set that day myself i think they should compensate me also. A 150.00 gift card would sure help my mental anguish!

Five days after the 9/11 attack, Christie Todd Whitman, then head of the Environmental Protection Agency, told reporters, “The good news continues to be that air samples we have taken have all been at levels that cause no concern.”

However, the EPA’s own Office of the Inspector General later revealed that this was an outright lie. In August 2003 it was revealed that the government ordered the EPA to give the public misleading information, telling New Yorkers on September 12 it was safe to breathe when reliable information on air quality was not available and Asbestos levels were known to be three times higher than national standards.

“Whitman’s deliberate and misleading statements to the press, where she reassured the public that the air was safe to breathe around lower Manhattan and Brooklyn, and that there would be no health risk presented to those returning to those areas, shocks the conscience,” Manhattan Federal Judge Deborah Batts wrote in February 2006.

EPA whistleblower, Dr. Cate Jenkins then wrote a letter blasting the EPA for hiding dangerous toxins from ground zero workers in the aftermath of 9/11.

The letter claimed that EPA-funded research on the toxicity of breathable alkaline dust at the site “falsified pH results” to make the substance appear benign, when it was, in reality, corrosive enough to cause first responders and other workers in lower Manhattan to later lose pulmonary functions and, in some cases, to die.

According to the 2003 EPA Inspector General’s investigation, Whitman conspired with the White House to lie about air quality at ground zero. Internal documents show it was Condoleezza Rice’s office that gave final approval to the infamous Environmental Protection Agency press releases days after 9/11 claiming the air around ground zero was “safe to breathe,” and that Whitman was merely following orders to mislead the public and ground zero workers.

Not only did the government deliberately lie about the aftermath of 9/11 and knowingly put the very heroes of the tragedy at risk, but they spent the next 8 and a half years attempting to cover up the fact while hundreds of ground zero first responders died agonizing deaths.

A federal appeals court in New York has ruled that the EPA and former head Christine Todd Whitman cannot be held accountable for illnesses resulting from hazardous dust and debris from the three buildings destroyed on 9/11, despite the fact that the agency knowingly gave misleading information to residents and workers in the aftermath.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Whitman's comments reassuring people about the safety around the site apparently were based on conflicting information and reassurances by the White House, reports the AP.

The law generally doesn't allow citizens to sue the government for mere incompetence, or failing to prevent someone from being injured; To win, plaintiffs must often prove that government employees actually created a danger themselves, through actions "so egregious, so outrageous," that they "shock the contemporary conscience."

Jacobs said Whitman and other EPA officials fell short of violating that standard, even if they had acted with deliberate indifference.

Still searching for the site where Republicans told them to drop dead.

quote:

Sez Jennifer:
Still searching for the site where Republicans told them to drop dead.

That would be the " My Reality Is In Juanderland" blog.